The Nationals’ first base dilemma may finally be nearing its resolution.

Derrek Lee has agreed to terms on a one-year contract with the Orioles, according to the Baltimore Sun. Lee, 35, must still pass a physical before the deal becomes official, but that’s expected to be a formality.

Which leaves Adam LaRoche as the lone first baseman of significance remaining on the free-agent market, and the Nationals as the lone remaining club looking to sign a significant first baseman. LaRoche, who hit .261 with 25 homers and 100 RBI for the Diamondbacks last season, has been seeking a three-year contract. The Nats, according to club sources, are willing to offer him a two-year deal.

LaRoche, 31, must now decide whether to accept the Nationals’ offer or hold out in hopes another team needs help at first base and comes calling.

I think that my choosing first, the Orioles made the Nationals a better team.Lee might hit .280-30-100 (meaning his off-year was due to his thumb) or he might hit .250-20-75 (which means his off-year was due to age).At 35, I think it's the latter and not the former.With LaRoche, you wind him up and he gives you .265-25-90 plus solid defense.If no one else offers him three-years, then he has to sign with Washington. However, I'd give him a drop-dead date to sign. The team just can't wait forever for him to make up his mind.I think the Birds did us a favor.

Give him three years. The Nats can always trade him later. Someone will need help sooner or later. He is a proven commodity. He helps us as long as we need him. And he helps us when we don't need him any longer and we trade him for whatever.fpcsteve

Lee had a hand injury this past season which negatively impacted his performance and his power. He's clearly a better hitter than Laroche, who has been plagued by long early seaon slumps throughout his career.

Sad. Just sad. Our best move would have been a 1 year contract and more choices next year. Lee has been a better hitter by far during his career. And a one year contract would have gotten us potential for choices like Fielder, Gonzalez, Pujols in 2012 (or Lee!). .265 is a joke for a 4-spot hitter.At this point I'd rather they go after Jim Thome and if needed platoon him with Michael Morse. Not understanding why they couldn't pull the trigger for an extra 1/2 million and get the better guy.Has anyone said why Lee chose Baltimore?

I would have preferred Lee to Laroche, and Dunn to either one. But now there is one decent option left. If the Nats go into the season with Cssey Kotchman, Nick Johnson, Russell Branyan or Mike Morse as a starting first baseman, how can they possibly expect anyone to take them seriously? Get Laroche. Whatever it takes.

Seems to me this is exactly what Rizzo wanted. He didn't much care which one he got, but whichever one it is, when he's the last one out there, the player has no leverage and the team does.So, he gets to sign LaRoche to a two year deal, since by now LaRoche and agent knows there is no one else out there willing to do so.I also like LaRoche over Lee, partly just because LaRoche, while he has less upside, he also has less downside. And I'm very glad it's not a one year deal, because there is zero chance in a fully competitive market that we will win a bidding war for Prince Fielder, Adrian Gonzalez and Prince Albert.Gonzalez will extend with Boston. They didn't give up prospects to just have him for one year. They agreed to parameters of an extension before the trade was executed.Prince weighs 270 Lbs and every NL team will see him as more of a risk than every AL team. his best long term offers will come from AL clubs.Pujols will stay a Cardinal or St Louis will burn.This is the right move.

If Nick goes down, then we still have Morse, who hits right handed pitching nearly as well as left. That's a win win. Morse could turn out to be a real jewel but we will never know if he rides the bench.

I'd have preferred D Lee, but LaRoche for 2 years seems like a fine deal to me. And I agree with Sunderland about next year's FA market–if you think we're getting Pujols you're crazy, and I think a long-term bet on Prince Fielder would be pretty crazy too. So if nothing else, LaRoche for 2 years helps the Nats avoid that temptation.

I agree, we need the LH Bat who is not likely to get hurt or hit the age wall this year or next. If they do not sign Adam L to a 2 year deal then Rizzo has some explaining to do. It is time to lock in the roster and they can not afford to have so many misses……They blew the early signing of pitchers…and it is clear people still do not want to play here….so they need to over pay the right LH 1B….Dunn would have been my choice but Rizzo wants defense so he better be right about Adam L!

What decent starting pitching? Well, it's pretty much gone although Pavano and Millwood are still out there and they eat innings. The starting pitching has not been improved despite Rizzo's pledge to do so. These starters will wear out the bullpen very quickly, just like they did last year & without Capps the bullpen is probably weaker.

While I would have liked to keep Dunn…..those fielding comps are worthless as are the new fielding Zone ones….just watching the games shows you Dunn was a really bad 1Ber…..he let some many balls go right by him and be was so bad on one hop balls it was embarrassing for him… but those were not his errors….Zimm and Ian D got charged with most all those.

JayB, agreed, fielding comps, worthless.Same for outfielders. Nyjer doesn't get an error when he throws to the wrong base and runners advance, or when a runner scoots to third knowing Nyjer does not have the arm to threaten him.And while I did post earlier that we would not get Pujols, Fielder or Gonzalez, I'm not agreeing they "would never play here". It's just that Pujols and Gonzalez are almost certain to re-sign with their respective teams, and Fielder, as the one top flight 1B FA next year, with open bidding among all AL and NL teams, will end up with AL offers that top NL offers.

I posted on Nats Journal Lee's stats in 2009 before he was injured. They were better than Dunn's in every area, except home runs. ( and there it was very close) Of course, the defense is incomparable. And the strikeouts.So I'm disappointed the Nats didn't get Lee. But, assuming they get LaRoche, the team, barring injury, is far better than they were in 2010.

Mark, is there a way, I can log onto this site without going through, at least, three or four procedures. I select profile, post comment, post comment two more times, then enter my Code word, or whatever you call it. Other sites don't have this. I enjoy your column and will continue to read it–but posting is becoming too frustrating, not that anyone will be disappointed if I don't.

Perhaps LaRoche is not really in the equation. Rizzo could very welll be working on a different trade/free-agent signing scenario. Maybe Boras is eagerly trying to sell him Beltre as a potential gold-glove 1st baseman.

If they get LaRoche the defense is improved all over the field, from Werth in right to Bernadina in left, to the entire infield.LaRoche seems a fine complementary piece. The dynamic duo could hit 15 homers apiece if Espinosa's hand comes around. Add Harper in 2012 and the offense will mash.I can't hammer Rizzo over the glaring need for starters. It's clear he went to the wall for Greinke and the guy refused. I still think letting Peralta go was a mistake — though the fireballer in the Hammer deal sounds promising if he throws strikes.I hope we'll all celebrate more wins in 2011. Until then, be safe, everybody, and watch out for the knuckleheads. It's amateur night.

Jeeves, either create a signin for yourself (you only need an email address, not a blog). In the alternative, just sign in as anonymous and include your handle in the post.Now, posting from a phone, like my droid, is more problematic, and I suspect it's the source of a lot of typos here, too.

natsfan1a, you are just a nice person, and that just throws me off. Where's Brue and swammi when I need them. O.K. So I don't need them. In fact…. Sorry it's New Year's Eve and I'm not going there. Happy New Years from P.E.I. Canada, natsfan. And the Nats are going to be a lot better this year–much better, barring injury.

rogieshan said… Perhaps LaRoche is not really in the equation. Rizzo could very welll be working on a different trade/free-agent signing scenario. Maybe Boras is eagerly trying to sell him Beltre as a potential gold-glove 1st baseman. I am glad you said it because that is option #3 and Beltre is better than LaRoche or D. Lee. Option #4 could be a Nick Johnson/Michael Morse platoon and that wouldn't surprise me but only makes sense if it truly was a LH/RH platoon and Nick enters the season as healthy as Nick enters a season.Other note to the other Blogs that had their "inside info" from a Nats official on the 1st base signing this week, —-you need a better source—.HAPPY NEW YEAR EVERYONE IN NATSTOWN!!!!

This is a blessing. God bless Wild Turkey, and Peter Angelos. Put me in the camp that believes Derrek Lee has begun his descent into mediocrity.Plus, we need LaRoche for his left-handed bat behind Zim. I know the guy only hits .150 until Memorial Day (when we could be 25 games out of first, depending on how fast the Phillies break), but he's consistent with a good glove.And to all those people wishing for a return of Nick "60-day disabled list" Johnson, I have a request: please pour yourself a stiff New Year's eye-opener and consume. Repeat. And Repeat. Then think about what you're saying. Friends don't let friends sign Nick Johnson.

Thanks, Jeeves and sec3. Jeeves, as an alternative to using "Anonymous," you could select "Name/URL" just above it. Type your name into the "Name" box that appears and leave the "URL" box empty. You'll still need to type the Captcha.Happy New Year to all!

What Sunshine said. Glad to know you all. Happy new year. As for " wait till next year!"… It's here. Pitchers and catchers closer than ever. So is a first base guy, even if his last name isn't Dunn. Xojb

G'morning,and HNY to each and all.rogieshan, a very interesting thought about Boras working the Nats to get them to sign Beltre. I had never considered that.Doc, I think in this case, it has nothing to do with Rizzo being slow to come to a decision. I think he made his decision many weeks ago. He wanted LaRoche for a two year deal. And he's likely to get what he wants. I think he played this exactly as he should have (just as he did with Strasburg and Harper and Solis and Cole and Werth). I give him props for this.It's not like he could have forced LaRoche to sign a two year offer 5 weeks ago.

Sunderland couldn't agree more. People think Rizzo can just do and sign who he wants for what he wants. Doesn't work that way. Even with suspect pitching this is a much better team minus Dunn and plus Werth and hopefully LaRoche.

Doc said… "This Lee/LaRoche waiting game has highlighted one central issue—Rizzo has a problem making a decision. Same thing with Dunn, he didn't pull the trigger when he needed to."Rizzo didn't want Dunn for what he got from the Sox. He made the offer he was willing to make. Dunn wanted (and got) more than Rizzo was ever going to offer.Good or bad decision, I'm glad Rizzo isn't letting emotion affect his decisions.

Doc, Everything I have read indicates that the Dunn issue (back in July) was not Rizzo's call but the Lerners. Rizzo wanted to trde Dunn, Kasten wanted to resign him for 3/42. Basically the strategy would have been, give Dunn an ultimatum, sign for 3/42 or we are trading you to Chicago. The Learners said no to the trade and thus, there was no leverage over Dunn.

Tim, sounds like you have been reading Boswell. I'd say take whatever you read from him with a grain of salt. His story on the Dunn deal has been changing as time goes by. First it was that Dunn would surely have signed for three years back in July, but Rizzo never offered. Then it changed to Kasten could have signed Dunn, but Rizzo wanted to trade him. Then it changed to this sign-or-we'll-trade-you ultimatum. So what's next? Just stay tuned for Boswell's next chat, and he'll have another spin on it. The thing is, if you're reporting facts they generally stay the same over time. Boswell's not reporting facts. He may well be making stuff up.

@N.Cognito: Where I see the "problem", is that Rizzo is unwilling to go much above what he invisions as "fair value" for a contract length; Dunn @10M/year = great value, @36M/3years = fair value, @56M/4years = negative value. Same kind of story is playing out with LaRoche; Rizzo wants him for 2 years, and seems willing to pay around $6-8M/year, but LaRoche (& his agent) are looking for 3 years at $7-8M+. We'll see how it plays out…BTW, I wouldn't be suprised to see D. Lee struggle in the AL this year.